salesleader-desk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: it returns the full piece with named sections rather than a summary or list, with no implied side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited specification of the return contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one required parameter, safety annotations present, and an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and where the slug comes from. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the slug parameter is documented as 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces.' The description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one full juxtaposition piece'), and enumerates its contents: the question, each writer's section body, and the Editor's weaving coda. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools and get_writer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'one full' plus the schema's 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces' makes the retrieval context clear: use this when you need a single complete piece after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with the sibling list tools is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope ('full roster record' plus fields) but no deeper behavioral context such as errors, prerequisites, or lookup behavior. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and a compact field list. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, read-only, one-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what will be returned, and the schema covers the required slug parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema fully documents the single parameter, including its source and an example ('Writer slug from list_writers, e.g. ray-delgado'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries that weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one desk writer's full roster record'), and it lists the concrete fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from list_writers and get_magazine_piece by scope and resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The singular wording implies this tool is for fetching a single writer record, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_writers or what conditions rule it out. Routing to alternatives is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns an honest empty array rather than an error when no pieces exist, and explains the 'corpus gap' with a pointer to AGENTS.md. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and output fields, the second adds the important empty-array caveat. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple optional-limit list tool, the description covers behavior, scope, and output fields; annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the input schema with default and max values. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('juxtaposition pieces generated by the writers' desk'), and the returned fields (title, format, question, contributing writers). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_magazine_piece and list_writers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It is clear this is the listing tool for magazine pieces, and the empty-array note tells the agent that calling it is still appropriate when no pieces have been generated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-piece or writer lookups, but the list scope is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a fixed set of exactly four fictional writers, avoiding expectations of arbitrary or paginated data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the action, the scope, and the returned fields without any redundant wording. The most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned and the size of the result set, leaving no critical gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The empty schema fully covers the input surface, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the four fictional staff writers on the SalesLeader desk'), and enumerates the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes this list tool from sibling tools like get_writer or list_magazine_pieces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context is clear: this tool lists the complete writer roster for the SalesLeader desk. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_writer for single-writer lookup, but the scoping is precise enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.